From April 2, 2014 to July of the same month, the Defendant: (a) entered into a lease contract with four tenants, including E, and four tenants, who were entrusted with the business of selling and selling four houses owned in the name of D when the Defendant was residing in the said house; and (b) entered into the lease contract with the third party, and entered into the contact with E with the third party without contact with F despite being aware that the third party was residing in the said house; (c) but did not contact with E during the absence of contact, the Defendant damaged the entrance locking device and infringed upon the residence of E by entering into the entrance.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial lies on the prosecutor, and the finding of guilt must be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected of guilty, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if the defendant's interest is determined as the profit of the defendant, and the crime of intrusion upon residence is the legal interest of peace such as residence, so the residence of another person should be actually used or scheduled to be used by the other person.

B. However, according to the records of this case, the fact that E, on November 2, 2013, deposited KRW 15 million in the head of the Tong established in the name of D, and deposited KRW 3 million in November 13, 2013, by setting the deposit amount as KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in the head of the Tong established in the name of D, is recognized.

However, the Defendant delegated F with the sale of the instant loan.